The Bishop's Authority: What Can He Change in the Liturgy?

[DeepeningFaith]

Since this topic comes up so often and likes to derail other threads, why not give it its own thread? The question here is, what authority does a Bishop have in deciding matters liturgical?

Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

GIRM:

1. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43);

The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273);

The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87);

The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362);

The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82);

The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283);

The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346).

Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in The Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

Canon Law:

Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

 

[benedictgal]

This is what the GIRM states that a bishop can do:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful.

He cannot, however, on his own, introduce novelties and abrogate things. For example, if he wanted to allow the laity to speak right after the homily, he would have to propose the adaptation to his national episcopal conference (in our case, the USCCB). Then, the proposal would be presented before the Latin Rite bishops who would then have to approve it by a two-thirds majority. Even then, the proposal would have to go to Rome to receive the necessary recognitio.

In 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wrote a letter to the USCCB regarding the “American” adaptations to the GIRM that the conference had proposed. Regarding musical instruments, the CDWDS stated that:

Certain other provisions seem to require further study and specification before being introduced as adapting legislation. What is said here may be understood to apply to nn. 301, 304, 326, 329, 339, 343, and the portion of n. 393 referring to approved musical instruments. In cases where the Conference of Bishops is to legislate, such legislation should be truly specific, and the law intends precisely that any particular episcopal legislation on these matters be enacted in common by the Bishops of the Conference rather than being left to be determined variously in different dioceses. In the absence of any particular legislation on such a matter, specifications contained in the universal law maintain their full force. In other words, the Conference of Bishops may name specific materials or instruments as suitable in addition to those universally deemed so, but in the absence of such specification, only the “traditional” materials or those otherwise specified in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani are to be regarded as approved.

Thus, here, it is not up to the individual bishop, but, the entire particular episcopal conference to decide.

Deepening, it’s not that folks are trying to derail a thread when this comes up. It’s just that the bishop does not have carte blanche over the Mass. Just as the priests and faithful are obliged to obey their bishops in faith and morals, the bishop, for their part, take a vow of obedience to the Holy Father and his successors. This includes obedience to the Holy See, since Congregations like the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments act in and with his authority.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

He cannot, however, on his own, introduce novelties and abrogate things.

I saw a video of Cardinal Arinze where he makes it sound as though a Bihsop could tell all of his Priests to only use the Roman Canon for the Eucharistic Prayer. The CDWDS discourages it, but it is allowed.

I think the following are things within the competence of the Bishop:
The use of females in liturgical ministries from altar serving, lectors, EMHC, and choir.
The Bishop could say that everyone must receive kneeling and on the tongue (I have an example of this if need be)
Which Eucharistic Prayer and Prefaces to use.
What songs to use. Also only Gregorian Chant
He could say that all Ordinary Form Masses must be said in Latin.

Thoughts?

Deepening, it’s not that folks are trying to derail a thread when this comes up. It’s just that the bishop does not have carte blanche over the Mass.

Oh I know that they aren’t doing it on purpose, it just seems that all the time when someone asks “Is what my Priest did ok?” Someone comes back with, well if the Bishop said yes, then it’s fine. And tehn we get onto the authority topic. So I decided to start this to have a thread where everyone could hash it out and not be threatened with it being closed for going off topic.

 

[benedictgal]

I saw a video of Cardinal Arinze where he makes it sound as though a Bihsop could tell all of his Priests to only use the Roman Canon for the Eucharistic Prayer. The CDWDS discourages it, but it is allowed.

I think the following are things within the competence of the Bishop:
The use of females in liturgical ministries from altar serving, lectors, EMHC, and choir.
The Bishop could say that everyone must receive kneeling and on the tongue (I have an example of this if need be)
Which Eucharistic Prayer and Prefaces to use.
What songs to use. Also only Gregorian Chant
He could say that all Ordinary Form Masses must be said in Latin.

Thoughts?

Oh I know that they aren’t doing it on purpose, it just seems that all the time when someone asks “Is what my Priest did ok?” Someone comes back with, well if the Bishop said yes, then it’s fine. And tehn we get onto the authority topic. So I decided to start this to have a thread where everyone could hash it out and not be threatened with it being closed for going off topic.

However, was he speaking off the cuff or was he speaking as prefect of the CDWDS? There’s a huge difference.

Furthermore, the bishops is the chief steward, caretaker, if you will, of the liturgical life of his diocese. This means that, first and foremost, he must ensure that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated according to the rights and norms prescribed by the Church. He cannot go off and invent and imbed ilicit rituals into the Mass. He needs to ensure the integrity of the liturgy.

In addition, even RS does allow for some creativity and flexibility in using the legitimate options the Church provides for the Mass:

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.45 Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.46

Thus, if the Church offers 13 versions of the Eucharistic Prayer, the bishop could not force a priest to use one form over the other. Now, the only time that the bishop could rightfully do so would be when it comes to the EP for Masses with Children, as these have specific paramters under which they are to be used. You could not, for example, use the EP for Masses with Children, if there are only adults present at Mass or if the adults make up a significant majority of the faithful (for example, Sunday Mass, or even daily Mass).

 

[SimonDodd]

I think the following are things within the competence of the Bishop:
. . . .
The Bishop could say that everyone must receive kneeling and on the tongue (I have an example of this if need be)

As I understand it, while Paul VI’s 1977 indult allowing communion in the hand in the United States was addressed to the forerunner of the USCCB, the authority it granted was permissive not mandatory, and was conferred on individual bishops, not USCCB collectively: “The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.” That seems to place the matter squarely in the hands of each bishop within their diocese. And unless there is some reason to suppose that the right to grant is not concurrently the right to withhold or even withdraw—once granted, did the laity obtain some kind of vested right to communion in the hand which a bishop may not now violate?—the upshot appears to be that an individual bishop could remove his authorization. Indeed, it appears that this has happened before.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

As I understand it, while Paul VI’s 1977 indult allowing communion in the hand in the United States was addressed to the forerunner of the USCCB, the authority it granted was permissive not mandatory, and was conferred on individual bishops, not USCCB collectively: “The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.” That seems to place the matter squarely in the hands of each bishop within their diocese. And unless there is some reason to suppose that the right to grant is not concurrently the right to withhold or even withdraw—once granted, did the laity obtain some kind of vested right to communion in the hand which a bishop may not now violate?—the upshot appears to be that an individual bishop could remove his authorization. Indeed, it appears that this has happened before.

Hmmm interesting! Thanks for the info. My example was that Bishop Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington removed permission for receiving Holy Eucharist in the hand at Extraordinary Form Masses.

Do you have a link to that specific document?

Also, could a Bishop mandate celebrating Mass ad orientam?

 

[FrDavid96]

As I understand it, while Paul VI’s 1977 indult allowing communion in the hand in the United States was addressed to the forerunner of the USCCB, the authority it granted was permissive not mandatory, and was conferred on individual bishops, not USCCB collectively: “The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.” That seems to place the matter squarely in the hands of each bishop within their diocese. And unless there is some reason to suppose that the right to grant is not concurrently the right to withhold or even withdraw—once granted, did the laity obtain some kind of vested right to communion in the hand which a bishop may not now violate?—the upshot appears to be that an individual bishop could remove his authorization. Indeed, it appears that this has happened before.

The 1977 indult doesn’t apply anymore because subsequent liturgical legislation (approved by the Holy See) provides different norms. In the new norms, the conference of bishops requests permission from the Holy See, which grants that permission for the entire territory. That means that an individual bishop cannot decide to accept or reject it for his own diocese (like he could under the 77 indult). However, as pastor of his diocese, he can prohibit Comm. in the hand in limited circumstances. He might say for example that it’s not permitted at outdoor Masses, or he might impose a temporary moratorium on it if he notices that it’s being abused. He can also certainly provide norms/guidelines for individual priests to determine if it’s appropriate or not in individual circumstances (for example, to say that if a particular person is in the habit of taking the Host back to the pew, the priest should stop administering in the hand to that particular person).

There is no right to Comm. in the hand, so there’s nothing to violate.

 

[SimonDodd]

Do you have a link to that specific document?

Sorry, I thought I included it; it’s here.

The 1977 indult doesn’t apply anymore because subsequent liturgical legislation (approved by the Holy See) provides different norms. In the new norms, the conference of bishops requests permission from the Holy See, which grants that permission for the entire territory.

(Emphasis added.) Citation and/or link, please?

 

[FrDavid96]

Since this topic comes up so often and likes to derail other threads, why not give it its own thread? The question here is, what authority does a Bishop have in deciding matters liturgical?
:

There are different levels of decision-making and/or adaptations.

1. Those proposed by the Conference of Bishops and specifically approved by the Holy See. These appear as part of the GIRM for each territory.
2. Those which are already granted by the Holy See, but left for the conference to determine without further need of approval from the Holy See (such as determining the manner of the sign-of-peace).
3. Those which are left to the individual bishop to decide on his own authority. Sometimes this is granted by the universal GIRM, or by numbers 1 or 2 above. An example of this is the posture of the faithful after Communion (kneeling, sitting, or standing).
4. Those options granted by either the GIRM or by 1, 2, or 3, which are left to the priest-presider. An obvious example of this is the choice of Eucharistic prayer. Another obvious example is the introduction to the penitential rite where the priest may use “these or similar words.”

 

[CDNowak]

I think the following are things within the competence of the Bishop:
The use of females in liturgical ministries from altar serving, lectors, EMHC, and choir.

Readers, not lectors. Lector, like acolyte is a specific instituted ministry, which is reserved to men (see Ministeria Quaedam)

 

[DeepeningFaith]

There are different levels of decision-making and/or adaptations.
3. Those which are left to the individual bishop to decide on his own authority. Sometimes this is granted by the universal GIRM, or by numbers 1 or 2 above. An example of this is the posture of the faithful after Communion (kneeling, sitting, or standing).QUOTE]

So the question is, what all can a Bishop decide? I guess I am trying ot put together a list here.
CDNowak;6766632:

Readers, not lectors. Lector, like acolyte is a specific instituted ministry, which is reserved to men (see Ministeria Quaedam)

Haha! Good catch!

 

[FrDavid96]

Since this topic comes up so often and likes to derail other threads, why not give it its own thread? The question here is, what authority does a Bishop have in deciding matters liturgical?
:

The local bishop has both the authority and the obligation to regulate the Liturgy within his own diocese. First and foremost this is an obligation to ensure that the norms of the Church are being followed at every Mass. That means that he has every authority to require that priests (and everyone else) follow the Church’s norms. In his capacity of pastor of the diocese, he is the one who determines what those norms say–he is the interpreter of the law for his diocese, and that’s a very very important point. The key here is that he interprets the norms, he doesn’t compose them. To put that another way, the bishop cannot permit, and certainly cannot require anything that outright goes against what the Church has already established. See the later paragraph on dispensations though.

There are times when the bishop does indeed legislate liturgical matters, but not entirely on his own authority. It has to be a matter that the Holy See has specifically allowed him to make his own decision (to legislate particular law). Some matters included here would be to determine the particular calendar for his own diocese, or to require days of fasting, or even to require that church building and renovation meets certain criteria. He could also do something like determine the Sunday Mass schedules for his diocese–he could prohibit Sunday evening Masses after 7 PM, or require every parish to have an 11 AM Sunday Mass, just for example–but such would be administrative acts and would not affect the Sunday obligation.

He also has the authority to dispense from the law. And the bishop has considerable latitude here. Under the new code of canon law, the bishop can dispense from almost anything–that is, anything not reserved to a higher authority. The authority to dispense can get rather difficult to determine. To dispense means to release from an obligation–but it does not mean to legislate ones own laws, and that’s what makes it tricky. The bishop can dispense a priest from the obligation to wear full vestments (I have such a dispensation when I do Masses at the prison because of the prison’s tight security restrictions on excessive clothing), yet at the same time a bishop could not say that he is “dispensing” by allowing orange vestments at Mass. As I said, this can get tricky because there can be a very fine line between dispensing (relaxing or releasing from the law) on the one hand, and outright legislating (writing new law) on the other hand. There are also limits on a dispensation. For example, a bishop can dispense a prison chaplain from the obligation to wear full vestments, but would not be able to dispense all the priests of his diocese from vestments at every Mass under normal circumstances (because that would be going too far).

 

[CDNowak]

In general, Father David, would it be correct to say that the bishop has full executive and judicial power over the liturgy in his diocese, along with limited legislative power? (Just thinking that these terms are a little more accessible to Americans due to our tripartite government.)

 

[FrDavid96]

So the question is, what all can a Bishop decide? I guess I am trying ot put together a list here.

I don’t think a “list” is possible. On the one hand, it would be possible to go through the GIRM and highlight everything that refers to the bishop making a decision on his own authority but that would only be a start; on the other hand, there are too many times when the bishop can either legitimately require something (ie something within the Church’s norms) which would bind the local pastors, or can dispense from the liturgical laws, that such a list isn’t really possible. Because of the bishop’s wide latitude to legitimately dispense, such a list would be considerable, and indeed I think impossible because we would have to “imagine” all kinds of unusual circumstances.

Just to illustrate what I mean here, the bishop cannot eliminate the sign-of-the-cross at the beginning of Mass. However, if a priest breaks his arm and it’s in a cast, he can dispense the priest from doing the gesture (common sense, right?) He could also dispense an elderly priest from kneeling at the Consecration. Composing a list of such possible dispensations would be mind-boggling and quite frankly we’d have to get into all kinds of possible situations that the whole conversation would just become absurd.

 

[benedictgal]

Hmmm interesting! Thanks for the info. My example was that Bishop Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington removed permission for receiving Holy Eucharist in the hand at Extraordinary Form Masses.

Do you have a link to that specific document?

Also, could a Bishop mandate celebrating Mass ad orientam?

He removed that “permission” because in the EF, CITH does not exist. You cannot mix and match between the EF and the OF. The only form of receiving Holy Communion in the EF is kneeling and on the tongue. The OF has the option of CITH, while COTT remains the default.

 

[FrDavid96]

In general, Father David, would it be correct to say that the bishop has full executive and judicial power over the liturgy in his diocese, along with limited legislative power? (Just thinking that these terms are a little more accessible to Americans due to our tripartite government.)

Yes. I do think that’s a good way to put it.

 

[benedictgal]

Sorry, I thought I included it; it’s here.

(Emphasis added.) Citation and/or link, please?

Here it is from the GIRM:

1. The adaptations spoken of below that call for a wider degree of coordination are to be decided, in accord with the norm of law, by the Conference of Bishops.

1. It is the competence of the Conferences of Bishops in the first place to prepare and approve an edition of this Roman Missal in the authorized vernacular languages, for use in the regions under their care, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See.149

The Roman Missal, whether in Latin or in lawfully approved vernacular translations, is to be published in its entirety.

1. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);

The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);

The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);

The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);

The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);

The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);

The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).
Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

I hope this helps.

Now, there was a huge brouhaha during the Swine Flu panic, where not a few dioceses and parishes were restricting the distribution of Holy Communion to CITH. However, when the CDWDS received letters of complaint from the faithful, it noted that the bishops (and the parishes, for that matter) were acting beyond the scope of their authority.

 

[SimonDodd]

Fr. David, do you mean Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92 (CDW, 2004) (hereinafter “RS”) (“if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her”)? Respectfully, I don’t think it need be read as abrogating the authority of the bishops implied in the 1977 indult, at least in territories to which the latter applied are concerned.

If RS is read to abrogate the 1977 indult, it’s hard to see where Card. Caffarra, the example I cited above, got his authority to suspend communion in the hand, since his action postdates RS by several years. Card. Caffarra evidently does not read RS as restrictive of his authority. Moreover, while both were given by the CDW, the 1977 indult bore Paul VI’s authority while RS bears only the (concededly substantial) authority of the CDW itself. So there are a few factors suggestive that RS doesn’t, in fact, supercede the 1977 indult. And on the face of the text, there are reasons to doubt whether it should do so in theory.

First, does it apply in the first place? By its own terms, it applies to “areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission” for communion in the hand (emphasis added). But is the United States such an area? One can argue that it is not. The recognitio of the Apostolic See was not given to the Bishops’ conference, but directly to individual bishops: “each bishop may … authorize [CitH] in his diocese.”

Second, even assuming that it applies to the United States, I would think that a bishop could rightly claim that in 1977, he was given certain authority by the Pope, and that this authority cannot be revoked by any authority less than the Pope. I understand that the freestanding authority of the Congregations is an intricate matter. Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that unless the practice of affixing Papal approval to some curial documents but not to others is meaningless (which is too extravagent to be supposed), then between two curial documents, one issued with such direct Papal approval and one without, the former trumps the latter. (The maxim leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant presupposes the otherwise equal authority of the two pieces of legislation.)

Third, RS applies only to the extent that the Bishop’s Conference acted with the authority of the Holy See. The recognitio is made a part of RS’ directive, and it seems inescapable that the terms and limits of any given recognitio, and not just its existence, are thus also incorporated into RS’ direction. To illustrate why this must be so, imagine that the 1977 indult had authorized the USCCB to authorize communion in the hand in the lower 48, and the Bishop’s conference had directed that CitH was allowed throughout the United States. The conference would have acted ultra vires so far as Alaska and Hawaii were concerned, because those states would not be areas in which CitH was authorized by the bishops’ conference with the recognitio of the Holy See. Only their authorization of CitH in the lower 48 bore the authority of the Holy See, but in Alaska and Hawaii, it was done on their own authority alone; RS requires both.

From this hypothetical, we can easily see that the terms of the Holy See’s recognitio must bear directly on the operation of RS. And in the case of the 1977 indult, the Holy See made the diocesan bishop “the decider.” Thus, even assuming that USCCB can independently authorize CitH by force of the 1977 indult, one could argue that a diocese whose bishop, “according to his prudent judgment and conscience,” refuses to allow CitH, could not be brought to heel by RS. Think about how it would play out in practice. Suppose you wanted to receive in the hand, and were not allowed. When you complained, citing your rights under RS92, the bishop could simply point out that in purporting to authorize CitH in that diocese over the head of the ordinary, the conference did not act with the recognitio of the Holy See as RS requires.

Whether so acting is appropriately pastoral is another matter, of course!

 

[benedictgal]

Fr. David, do you mean Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92 (CDW, 2004) (hereinafter “RS”) (“if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her”)? Respectfully, I don’t think it need be read as abrogating the authority of the bishops implied in the 1977 indult, at least in territories to which the latter applied are concerned.

If RS is read to abrogate the 1977 indult, it’s hard to see where Card. Caffarra, the example I cited above, got his authority to suspend communion in the hand, since his action postdates RS by several years. Card. Caffarra evidently does not read RS as restrictive of his authority. Moreover, while both were given by the CDW, the 1977 indult bore Paul VI’s authority while RS bears only the (concededly substantial) authority of the CDW itself. So there are a few factors suggestive that RS doesn’t, in fact, supercede the 1977 indult. And on the face of the text, there are reasons to doubt whether it should do so in theory.

First, does it apply in the first place? By its own terms, it applies to “areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission” for communion in the hand (emphasis added). But is the United States such an area? One can argue that it is not. The recognitio of the Apostolic See was not given to the Bishops’ conference, but directly to individual bishops: “each bishop may … authorize [CitH] in his diocese.”

Second, even assuming that it applies to the United States, I would think that a bishop could rightly claim that in 1977, he was given certain authority by the Pope, and that this authority cannot be revoked by any authority less than the Pope. I understand that the freestanding authority of the Congregations is an intricate matter. Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that unless the practice of affixing Papal approval to some curial documents but not to others is meaningless (which is too extravagent to be supposed), then between two curial documents, one issued with such direct Papal approval and one without, the former trumps the latter. (The maxim leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant presupposes the otherwise equal authority of the two pieces of legislation.)

Third, RS applies only to the extent that the Bishop’s Conference acted with the authority of the Holy See. The recognitio is made a part of RS’ directive, and it seems inescapable that the terms and limits of any given recognitio, and not just its existence, are thus also incorporated into RS’ direction. To illustrate why this must be so, imagine that the 1977 indult had authorized the USCCB to authorize communion in the hand in the lower 48, and the Bishop’s conference had directed that CitH was allowed throughout the United States. The conference would have acted ultra vires so far as Alaska and Hawaii were concerned, because those states would not be areas in which CitH was authorized by the bishops’ conference with the recognitio of the Holy See. Only their authorization of CitH in the lower 48 bore the authority of the Holy See, but in Alaska and Hawaii, it was done on their own authority alone; RS requires both.

From this hypothetical, we can easily see that the terms of the Holy See’s recognitio must bear directly on the operation of RS. And in the case of the 1977 indult, the Holy See made the diocesan bishop “the decider.” Thus, even assuming that USCCB can independently authorize CitH by force of the 1977 indult, one could argue that a diocese whose bishop, “according to his prudent judgment and conscience,” refuses to allow CitH, could not be brought to heel by RS. Think about how it would play out in practice. Suppose you wanted to receive in the hand, and were not allowed. When you complained, citing your rights under RS92, the bishop could simply point out that in purporting to authorize CitH in that diocese over the head of the ordinary, the conference did not act with the recognitio of the Holy See as RS requires.

Whether so acting is appropriately pastoral is another matter, of course!

However, indults are not permanent. These can be rescinded at any time. CITH is an indult. Furthermore, you might be ignoring another provision in RS 92 that pertains to CITH:

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

Thus, if there is a risk of profanation of the Sacred Host, then, CITH should be suspended. Thus, the bishop was acting within his competency right then and there.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hmmm interesting! Thanks for the info. My example was that Bishop Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington removed permission for receiving Holy Eucharist in the hand at Extraordinary Form Masses.

Do you have a link to that specific document?

Also, could a Bishop mandate celebrating Mass ad orientam?

Benedictgal already addressed the first part.

As to the second part (ad orientam), I think the answer is yes, because the universal norms to not require either form, nor do they prohibit either. I think that a bishop could decide for his own diocese to require either direction for the priest.

Just like in the secular world, two different circuit courts might render two conflicting decisions on the same question of law, so too could different bishops both render conflicting decisions on matters of liturgical law; or two governors could issue conflicting executive orders, each binding his own state. That’s why the Holy See acts as a “court of last resort” in these things.

To get back to the ad orientam question, this would be more of an administrative (executive) act of the bishop, rather than a matter of interpreting the legislation–because the law doesn’t specify–although it would start with an interpretation. So a bishop cannot say “I have read the liturgical law and I determine that it requires the priest to say Mass versus populum” but he could say “I determine that for consistency in this diocese, I require all priests to say Mass ad orientam” (of course, switch the responses and it would be the same)